“”An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was a scientist who studied marine invertebrates, coral reefs and, most famously, was the man behind that dreadful, godless nonsense known as evolution by natural selection.

Historians credit Darwin, along with Alfred Russel Wallace, as the co-discoverer of the now-accepted theory of evolution by natural selection, the precursor to what became known (post-genetics) as the modern evolutionary synthesis. Darwin is best known for writing On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Origin of Species is arguably one of the few books to bridge the gap between technical science and popular science, being useful both to practising scientists (to understand both evidence and theory) and to the general public. It became a best-seller that fascinated the Victorian culture of its day, following the gradual discovery of the concept of deep time, which allowed natural selection to work. Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus, was an early evolutionary thinker who wrote and helped develop the concept of “transmutation of species”, which demonstrated the variation that life exhibits in the real world and how such features could be inherited. Charles’s extension of this was to apply natural selection to this process, whereby successful variations lived to reproduce and unsuccessful variations perished, leading to evolution. This led to him becoming one of the most influential scientists of the modern era.

Because of his association with evolution, Darwin often becomes a victim of the phenomenon known as quote mining. Confused by the completely different concepts of personality cult and scientific theory, modern creationists will turn to Darwin’s works and derisively take his comments, out of context, as ipso facto proof that evolution must be “wrong”.

Charles Robert Darwin was born in the county town of Shrewsbury, in Shropshire, England, United Kingdom, on 12 February 1809. His grandfather was Erasmus Darwin, an inventor and fellow member of the Lunar Society,[note 1] who also proposed a theory that was similar to evolution. When Charles was little, he liked to pull pranks and make jokes. In school, he did not pay much attention towards teachers, because he was more interested in science, like chemistry, and not interested in what the teachers taught him, which was mostly Greek and Latin classics and ancient civilizations and empires.

As he got older, he initially studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh, but having lost interest in becoming a doctor, he, being interested in nature, then decided to go beetle-hunting. He also joined the Glutton Club, where the members would eat something exotic, like a porcupine. His father, Robert Darwin, was not pleased and forced him to enroll in an Arts degree at Cambridge University, where his father hoped he might study towards a place in the Anglicanclergy. He was still more interested in geology, botany and zoology than his academic studies.

One day, he decided to go on a trip to view tropical plants in Tenerife. He decided to go with a person named Marmaduke Ramsay, who died,[note 2] and he was very sad.

Luckily, every cloud has a silver lining, and (after his graduation in 1831, and thanks to his reputation as a keen amateur naturalist) Darwin got a letter from a sea captain named Robert FitzRoy, who offered him a place on the HMS Beagle, a survey ship charting the coasts of South America. They spent much time in South America, mostly in Argentina and Peru, and made stops in Brazil, Tierra del Fuego, and the Galapagos. The voyage lasted five years and also took place in the Cape of Good Hope of South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Darwin spent as much time as possible ashore at these locations during the voyage, studying the local wildlife while other members of the expedition concentrated on charting the coastlines.

It was during this voyage that Darwin began to develop his theory of natural selection, and over the following decades, he honed the theory, conducting further research and seeking evidence for common descent. A common misconception is that Darwin thought of his theory because of the finches of the Galapagos. Although it is true that the finches did help him formulate the theory, most of his ideas came not from birds, but from skeletons of modern armadillos and sloths, compared with fossils of glyptodonts and giant ground sloths. Obviously, Darwin’s finches sound better then Darwin’s glyptodonts or Darwin’s giant ground sloths. Being meticulous in every detail (as evidenced by his earlier work as a botanist and marine researcher), Darwin took a considerable amount of time to write Origin, and actually planned it to be a significantly longer, multi-volume book covering every piece of evidence and each facet of his theory in full detail. He eventually settled on publishing only one volume on evolution in general, saving his work on application to human evolution until his later The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

As a scientific background, much was already known and theorised about evolution when Darwin was collecting data and writing. The ability of animals to alter or mutate over time was well-established—much of this was evident in pre-industrialised agriculture in the form of selective breeding and indeed Darwin's first thought for explaining natural selection was to put it in terms of artificial selection and selective breeding first. This explanatory tactic was repeated a century and a half later by biologist Richard Dawkins in The Greatest Show On Earth; replacing the selection used by humans to create better crops or new breeds of dog with undirected, but equally powerful, natural selection pressures produces the same result. The amount of time required for species to diversify so dramatically was also dawning on the scientific establishment. Victorian England played host to the first serious scientific studies of dinosaurfossils and the birth of modern palaeontology, and the exhibits of dinosaur reconstructions at the Crystal Palace pre-dated Darwin’s publication of Origin by six years.

On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, prompted by Alfred Wallace’s essay showing that he had hit on the same idea and might steal his thunder, although of course Darwin had been planning to publish his theory for some years.[note 3] While Darwin's initial papers on the subject of natural selection were only lukewarmly received by the scientific community initially, the book sold tremendously. Though it met with some criticism and scepticism both from within and outside the scientific community, it eventually became accepted as the definitive work of Darwinian evolution, the founding text on evolutionary biology, and something that stood the test of time against countless new discoveries in evolution; from genetics to punctuated equilibrium.

The famous conclusion to On the Origin of Species:

“”Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, di- rectly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally
breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on ac- cording to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. [2]

His later publication of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) proved much more controversial, since it explicitly placed humans within the evolutionary schema and presented extensive evidence for our animal ancestry. This provoked severe criticism, not least from the Church and its supporters, and ridicule, such as all those caricatures of Darwin as a monkey. This line of criticism remains popular with modern creationists to this day. Many tentatively accept evolution as described, but outright reject a relationship of humans to other animals; from the display in the Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm listing reasons that humans and apes cannot be related, to the oft-asked “How come there are still monkeys?” This has most formally been described as a battle between macroevolution and microevolution, even though Darwin’s theory, and its modern formulations, have no room (neither theoretically nor empirically) for such a distinction.

Darwin was married and had ten children, though three died during childhood. He avoided discussing his views on religion in public, but his private writings (from the Beagle era onwards) show that he was increasingly critical of theology and Biblical literalism, and had many doubts about God, including concerns about the problem of evil. In a letter of 1879, he described himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist, but stated that belief in evolution is not incompatible with theism.[3]

Many anti-evolutionists from Darwin’s lifetime to this day have done all they can to project Darwin in as bad a light as possible. One of the most prominent lies about Darwin is labeling him and his theory as “racist”.

Darwin was born to a wealthy family in England, surrounded by British imperialism and one of the most ethnocentric societies in world history. Almost all of the “scientific” authorities, anthropological colleagues, and religious figures around him trumpeted the dogma that whites were the superior race and blacks the most inferior, a racist ideology that goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. Darwin was born into this environment, but he did not share those views. In fact, he was probably the most egalitarian and progressive man in the 19th century. He challenged the anthropological and social status quo and rejected the prevailing prejudices of his time. He also got into an argument with the Beagle’s captain, Robert FitzRoy, when the latter praised slavery while Darwin rejected it. Darwin often praised those he met from so-called primitive cultures, and said that the nicest man he had ever met was a free military man of color stationed in South Africa.[5] He was not afraid to criticize people of his own ethnicity and frequently criticized his peers’ bigotry against subjugated people. He found every aspect of slavery abominable and wrote extensively against it.[6] He opposed the genocide of indigenous peoples and opposed the societal favoritism and double standards of Caucasian invaders.[7] He defined “savages” by their actions, not by their color or race.[8] In fact, he feared that his theory would be used as an excuse for racialism. Unfortunately, it was.

The Descent of Man may start out sounding like typical English thinking towards different races, but Darwin is merely repeating what he was told by others about different races, and the further one reads into the book, the more obvious an evolution in his thinking can be seen, as Darwin constantly criticizes those racist tendencies and begins to question the idea of multiple races: he says that the label “race” is inadequately defined and not of any actual value regarding human beings, who are not sufficiently distinct to be considered separate species.[9] While racists today try to claim that there is some kind of division between races (which there are none), Darwin said that our biased judgments against other people are superficial and erroneous, and that no matter how distinct other people may appear to European eyes, there is no consistent demarcation, because some Africans share traits in common with some Caucasians and the same is true of every other group.[10] He said that every race blends into every other race so smoothly that it is impossible to determine any real division. He even pointed out that noted experts in could not agree how many “races” there were or how to categorize them. Before Darwin was born, the scientist Carl Linnæus (creator of Linnaean taxonomy) categorized humans into 6 different “races,” but Darwin criticized that too. He pointed out that not even the best authorities on the subject could agree on the number of races there were, and that some of his colleagues had proposed as many as 63 races![11] However, this continuum view of biological variation extended to all organisms, and Darwin did not deny the utility of divisions.

“”Extinction has only separated groups; it has by no means created them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as fine as those between the finest existing varieties, nevertheless a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.

Darwin also discarded the idea of a “pure” or “superior” race, arguing that “racial purity” would lead to defects and “superiority” was a variable and determined by the environment (not by some act of will of purity), and since ecosystems frequently change it will therefore drive more variations with populations.

Elizabeth Reid Cotton, Lady Hope, a British evangelist, claimed that she met Darwin on his deathbed and that he had a deathbed conversion to Christianity. The story was not reported until three decades after Darwin’s death in an AmericanBaptist newspaper, the Watchman-Examiner, on 15 August 1915.[12] The story has been promoted by some modern-day evangelicals, but it has been debunked by both Darwin’s family and by James Moore.[13] It is even denied by Answers in Genesis.[14]

The year 2009 was the bicentennial of Darwin’s birthday, and heretics everywhere gathered to celebrate. Darwin Day (February 12) joins Evolution Day (November 24) as another pain in the ass for creationism. That year was also the 150th anniversary of the publication of his best-seller, Origin of Species.

Darwin is also the name of a character in the Cartoon Network show The Amazing World of Gumball, who is Gumball’s pet goldfish that went through what the average person mistakenly believes to be evolution and became his brother.[15]

He also appears as a character in Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, and is met by the protagonists, like every other well-known historical person in the series. Ironically enough, humans in the AC lore are the result of intelligent design—not by God, mind you—but by beings comparable to ancient astronauts, who were seemingly born on Earth. Where they came from is a mystery, though.

Charles Darwin is also present in the backstory of the X-Men villain Mr. Sinister, inspiring him through the theory of evolution into becoming obsessed with inducing mutation. Sinister then pursues a lengthy career of mad science and cartoon villainy and going by “Mister” despite being a doctor.

Perhaps most significantly, the creatures from the Alien film series are partially inspired by his writings on the ichneumonid wasp, whose parasitic reproductive cycle troubled philosophers, naturalists, and theologians in the 19th century, who found the insect inconsistent with the notion of a world created by a loving and benevolent God.[16] Darwin found the example of the Ichneumonidae so troubling that it contributed to his increasing doubts about the nature and existence of a creator. In an 1860 letter to the American naturalist Asa Gray, Darwin wrote:[17]

I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.

Darwin stated that “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.” He also stated that “Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”[18]

In June 1850, his nine-year-old daughter Annie, who had been a particular favourite of his, fell sick and, after a painful illness, died on 23 April 1851. During Annie’s long illness, Darwin had read books by Francis William Newman, a Unitarian evolutionist who called for a new post-Christian synthesis and wrote that “the fretfulness of a child is an infinite evil.” Darwin wrote at the time, “Our only consolation is that she passed a short, though joyous life.” For three years he had deliberated about the Christian meaning of mortality.[19] This opened a new vision of tragically circumstantial nature. His faith in Christianity had already dwindled away and he had stopped going to church. He wrote out his memories of Annie, but no longer believed in an afterlife or in salvation. [20]

In his autobiography, Darwin wrote of the period from October 1836 to January 1839:

During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.

↑“Even the most distinct races of man are much more like each other in form than would at first be supposed; certain negro tribes must be excepted, whilst others, as Dr. Rohlfs writes to me, and as I have myself seen, have Caucasian features. This general similarity is well shewn by the French photographs in the Collection Anthropologique du Museum de Paris of the men belonging to various races, the greater number of which might pass for Europeans, as many persons to whom I have shewn them have remarked. Nevertheless, these men, if seen alive, would undoubtedly appear very distinct, so that we are clearly much influenced in our judgment by the mere colour of the skin and hair, by slight differences in the features, and by expression.” -Charles Darwin http://infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html

↑“But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.” - Darwin, Descent of Man Chapter 7

↑van Wyhe, John (2008), Darwin: The Story of the Man and His Theories of Evolution, London: André Deutsch Ltd (published 1 September 2008), ISBN 0-233-00251-0

↑Darwin, Charles (1958), Barlow, Nora, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow, London: Collins, retrieved 4 November 2008